December 09, 2016, 04:47:25 PM

Author Topic: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?  (Read 29935 times)

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #90 on: May 13, 2012, 08:17:33 PM »
Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Maybe they don't want to do this on their flagship products.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #90 on: May 13, 2012, 08:17:33 PM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #91 on: May 13, 2012, 08:42:11 PM »

Thought I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

We come from different perspectives here, which is why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Things will always continue to sell when priced above their worth/value

That doesn't mean they are priced above their "value" -- it means that they have more value to some people than others. Value is subjective.

Quote
because there will always be people that won't care enough to wait for the price to drop (I must have this "NOW" mentality). This sort of blind purchasing is extremely common when it comes to brand loyalty (Apple fans, Intel fans, BMW fans) and is often used to justify the purchase price of a product.

Yes, (1) the product is worth more to some than others, and (2) some people are prepared to pay a premium to have the newest shiniest toy. Inevitably if the manufacturer sees that they can charge these people a premium they will use a higher initial price (like I mentioned before, this is a way for them to maximize sales revenue by catering to a variety of buyers).

They also use price discrimination via various rebate programs -- the cheapskates will wait until they can get it very cheaply, others will pay at some other point on the price curve.

Quote
First, there's what the product costs to make, then there's the profit margin. Usually there is a nice balance between the vendor selling the products and the company that made the products so each gets a profit they feel comfortable with. Depending on the product we're discussing, the final sales price varies in amount multiplied by the cost to make.

You can if you like decompose cost to the consumer as cost to make the product multiplied by profit margin, but that's not going to shed much light on the situation for two reasons. One is that costs are only relevant to the extent that they affect the supply curve. The second is that it is not absolute costs, profits and utility that matter, it is the marginal numbers.

Quote
When people do care, and sales are being hurt, the prices go down.


That might happen, or people might decline to buy the product, and the manufacturer are happy to sell a low volume of the product at a high price. Or the manufacturer might decide to use price discrimination to allow them to charge higher prices to people who are willing to pay them without losing more price sensitive customers (e.g. academic editions of software packages, rebate programs, etc).


Some companies (clothing companies) get away with a huge profit while others (video game industry, for example) cannot charge much more than the cost-to-make without causing a huge sales loss.

Quote
Ideally a product will be at a price where there is a nice balance between what the consumer pays, what the company profits are, and what the product cost to make. When it isn't people complain.

And that's the part I totally don't get. As the consumer, you get to determine what the marginal utility of the product is for you
. You can purchase or decline to purchase. You don't get to dictate what the marginal value of a sale is to the manufacturer, nor do you get to dictate what the marginal utility to any other buyer is.

For someone who doesn't find the product to meet their subjective notion of value, declining to purchase makes sense.  Just a reminder -- I am one of the people who declined to purchase the mark III.

If the complainers really were right, the manufacturer would be forced to reduce their price to accomodate the demands of the market place. But if this were the case, there would be no need to complain, just wait patiently for the manufacturer to get their introduction to reality. In this case, in my opinion, it is the complainers who are being introduced to reality (and aren't terribly happy with the process)

Quote
. And yes, I believe Canon will still be making a profit if it cost the same as the D800. Right now they're squeezing out an extra $500 because enough people are willing to pay it (while a whole lot of other people are not).

But that's smart -- they are using price discrimination to extract a premium from those who are willing to pay it. If it turns out that there are large numbers who would buy it for $3200 but not for $3000, they will probably lower their price (but not until they can build them fast enough to meet demand for those who want it at 3500)

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 885
Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2012, 08:55:23 PM »
Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...
Because that hypothetical camera would have to sell as many units as the MkIII with video AND cost 30% less to produce (in R&D, manufacturing, etc) for Canon to offer it at $2500. Since selling fewer units would mean R&D/manufacturing costs aren't recouped the same...and $2500 is a 30% off discount from $3500.

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess they've done that research...and those calculations...and know they'd be hurting their sales by going that route. I'd say the fact the only non-video DSLR you can find is a luxury brand like Leica means other companies agree.

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2012, 09:36:43 PM »
And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

yeah, that's the thing -- video is very much a Joe consumer feature. Those who want a high end stills only camera don't necessarily expect a discount for lack of video (Leica, Medium format, and some high end full frame SLRs).

A cheaper body is always feasible, but you're going to have to give up something that is important to high end users (not video, not "face detection", not "sports mode"). The problem is that the complainers want all the high end features (the same features that those with big budgets want) at a low price.

Richard8971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2012, 10:12:04 PM »
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money. I mean honestly, what performance "upgrades" could my camera have if it wasn't trying to support video.

Canon, leave video to video cameras and leave DSLR's for stills. PLEASE???

I have not and will not shoot video on ANY of my DSLR's and I personally own three that can (5DII, T1i and 7D) and I hate the fact it is even there.

D
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 10:13:48 PM by Richard8971 »
Canon 6D, 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4547
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #95 on: May 13, 2012, 10:38:25 PM »
more annoying than any cost increase is making funtional changes to the detrement of stills on a DSLR
a perfect example of this is making the AA filter stronger not weaker to fix moire. this comes at the expense of still image sharpness which give the 5Dmk2 sensor a slight sharpness edge. the difference is not huge but its there. Put video in fine but dont impact on still shooting functionality or performance to improve video performance leave those things for the video models / cameras
APS-H Fanboy

Orangutan

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1566
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2012, 10:43:44 PM »
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2012, 10:43:44 PM »

kdsand

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Newt II a human stampede
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #97 on: May 14, 2012, 12:07:38 AM »
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it?  Yes, I' know we've got a whole thread of that, but I'm interested in why this is such an emotional issue.  I rarely use video, and probably wouldn't notice if it were absent; however, most of my consumer goods have features I won't ever use.  Examples: my (economy) car has more horsepower than I need, and would have better fuel efficiency with less.  My b&w laser printer is twice as fast as I need, but I don't know if making it slower would make it cheaper than the $70 I paid for it.  It also has WiFi, which I have turned off.

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.  But anything that sells in quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands is necessarily a compromise, there's just no way around it.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

 Just a couple years ago I decided to invest in the Canon camera system. For me the idea or thought was -  I was stepping up to a very high end digital photography (DSLR) system, I could eventually work my way up to have F.F. and great glass. I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system.  >:(

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs.They are the jack of all trades & master of none.
 I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off......... 
I want the best camera (((not the best video camera))) that I can get for the money I pay. Any compromise likely  will  negatively impact my still photography which thus negates my primary reason for buying into this system to begin with.

This is already an expensive hobby/occupation so please yes a couple of extra 100 dollars here & couple of extra 100 dollars there add up really fast especially if you try to estimate what you'll be investing over the next 2 or 3  years.  In my case it appears to be over 3000 dollars way over (u.s.d.). :o Unfortunately that is a substantial chunk of change for me and my budget to part with.  :'( :'(

 As an example-
I just recently ended up buying the sigma 17 - 50mm 2.8 at less than half the price of Canons. I personally couldn't justify the humongous price difference. After much research I definitely feel that Canon is way way way over pricing this piece of glass. Not only can I not afford to have my budget negatively impacted from being taken advantage of but I also just plain don't like it!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 12:36:02 AM by kdsand »
7DII, 60D, t2i, Magic Lantern, Manfrotto, Joby, Domke, SanDisk and etcetera etcetera

Richard8971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #98 on: May 14, 2012, 12:16:32 AM »
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it...

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting here are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system.

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs. I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off.........  I want it to be the best camera (not the best video camera that I can get for the money I pay. Compromise negatively impacts my still photography which thus negates my reason for buying into this system to begin with.

I have a minute and the above answers your question. I bought a DSLR for stills, NOT video. I wonder how much better my camera would be if it wasn't drug down with unnecessary crap like video and it's support. Oh well...

D
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 12:20:04 AM by Richard8971 »
Canon 6D, 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2012, 01:51:24 AM »
Can we stop flogging this...



If you honestly believe that adding video to your DSLR has hindered its ability in ANY way then your fooling yourself. Thats like saying that a phone can't have an MP3 player built in because it may affect the way you can make calls.

Then as soon as someone proves that its not the case, people jump up and down, pointing and shouting and claiming that suddenly they have "factual proof" that it happened to their nephews best friends cousins neighbours brother, and he's a professional photographer so it must be true.

Lets be honest here.

Does it even freaking matter??

If you believe that video is hindering your picture taking abilities then either A. buy a camera that does not have video (Leica for example) or B. stop taking pictures because obviously your not as good as you think you are.

Simple solutions.

As for video raising the costs of the bodies... honestly? Id have to say not as much as what pure profiteering is doing.
Supply and demand.
You have a camera that has no video and you may sell 2000 of them a year, you take that same camera and add state of the art video feature via firmware (because lets face it its the same freaking sensor either way, they didn't hinder it just to make it shoot videos). Suddenly they sell 1 million copies.

If you were a burgeoning company that wants to make money and have a "HOT" device on your hands would you sell that for the same price as the model that sold 2000 copies or would you milk the market for everything its got and try selling it for 30% more.
Then the internets get flooded by people blaming the video for the reason why their beloved camera now costs 30% more than the previous model, especially since they "don't ever and will never use it".

Its not video raising costs....its GREED and Profit.

Plain and simple.

Can we let these types of threads die now please (i miss the I'm selling all my crap and moving to Nikon thanks to the D800E threads)??

Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

kdsand

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Newt II a human stampede
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #100 on: May 14, 2012, 02:15:57 AM »
I think most people would agree that yes the price is all about supply and demand.

I also believe most people would admit that videos is making an increased impact.

I myself for one am not going to jump brands, turncoat nor quit photography.  :o

I have to wonder if people saying shut up grin and bear it are actually closet videographers. Hmm?  :-[  :-X  :-[

Lol love the cartoon.  :D
7DII, 60D, t2i, Magic Lantern, Manfrotto, Joby, Domke, SanDisk and etcetera etcetera

Hillsilly

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #101 on: May 14, 2012, 04:25:48 AM »
But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.  We'd have variable ISO across the sensor, inbuilt ND grads, GPS, Bluetooth, WIFI connectivity, inbuilt ST-E3 functionality, inbuilt IR autofocus assist, improved weathersealing and durability, carbon fibre camera bodies, increased processing power, buffers, longer lasting batteries etc etc.  They'd also have the money to develop an adapter for EX speedlites that provides wireless connectivity with the ST-E3 and 600EX.  They'd even have money to develop a longer camera strap.  But instead Canon has chosen to develop DSLR video features.

I'm not saying that Canon (or any other manufacturer) is wrong with this.  Clearly, the market has spoken and we've said that we value video more.  last year, I even went out and bought a camera specifically because I wanted to take videos with a DSLR.  But to answer the initial question, cameras could be improved from a pure photographic perspective if video development resources were allocated to other areas.  But I think Canon has their priorities right in developing video.  My only concern is how much people have to pay to get top image quality (especially if they decide to discontinue the 5Dii).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 04:33:45 AM by Hillsilly »
Camera Obscura

NormanBates

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
  • www.similaar.com
    • www.similaar.com
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #102 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:00 AM »
the mistake there is to believe that "Canon has $X to put towards new product development".

it has $X if it's going to develop a stills-only camera (which they predict will sell A units) and $Y if it's going to be a stills-and-video camera (which they'll predict will sell B units)

none of us has any idea what X, Y, A, B are, but I'd guess that a $3K camera that doesn't record video won't sell as much as one that does, so A<B, and I'd guess that means X<Y

in any case, the cost of including video is very low: once you have live view, all you have to do is record that signal feed; and the encoding is not expensive: the video processor in the $15K Canon C300 costs less than $50 to manufacture (it can also be found on $300 consumer videocameras); please start a thread complaining that the 5D3 is more expensive than it need be because it has weather sealing that you don't need because you don't ever shoot in the rain; it's much more expensive than this silly video thing

as for the price hike, don't blame the yen, video, or anything like that: blame Canon
the D800 is also made in japan (yen argument us bollocks) and also shoots pretty decent video (see recent Philip Bloom review and comparison with 5D3), and it's $3K instead of $3.5K, while beating the 5D3 in nearly every metric that matters for stills


edit: I'm a video shooter, but if I buy a 5D3 it will be 90% for stills only
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 05:48:57 AM by NormanBates »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #102 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:00 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #103 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:21 AM »
@kdsands

Just noticed you've installed magic lantern on your T2i.

So are you a closet videographer then?   ;)

« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 06:36:54 AM by paul13walnut5 »

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2330
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #104 on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM »
yes - video raises the price of DSLRs.
Because up to now, Video-DSLRs are still the cheapest available large-sensor camcorders, video shooters are happy to pay whatever is charged for a video-DSLR, as long as it is substantially lower than what a similarly capable dedicatedvideo-cam costs. This drives up prices of DSLRs for stills shooters.

yes, video is wasted on the majority of all DSLR-buyers
only a smallish proportion of purchasers uses (hi-end) video capabilities. Many others may capture a few short clips  after purchase "to try it out", but will never seriously use video in DSLRs at all. Videos that are up to the standars of "enthusiast amateur still photos" are not easy to produce. In terms of creative imagination, skills, time and money for planning, capture and post production, even a fairly simple video is beyond the realm of most amatuer DSLR purchasers. 

I for one would love to get a DSLR like the 5D3 with all video-capabilitis disabled in firmware [except liveview] at a 25-50% discount on current price.   

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #104 on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM »